Translation:He buys one kilo of meat in total.
I disagree with most here about "in total" being wrong/strange. The sentence:
"He buys one kilo of meat in total"
...is a perfect sentence in English. Maybe not in American, but in English it is. What I don't understand is why it's "no". Does that not translate to "in the total" (which would be incorrect)?
Paulenrique, can you please tell me why it must be 'no total' as opposed to 'em total' or a different variant?
Thanks, and does it apply to similar instances where 'in' would be used in English?
In response to your query. In utero. I will pay you in sweets. We saw each other in passing.
In those examples, would 'na/no' be used instead of 'em', or is this different totally and not related?
Hoprint: Yes! "He buys a total of one kilo of meat" sounds better than all the other "solutions"
My understanding is that he's buying different meats that total to 1 kilo when added together, whether or not buying other commodities at the same time. Alternatively, he could be making multiple trips and ending up with 1 kilo of meat, again whether or not buying other items.
It is if he buys 200g of chicken livers, and 300g of beef tripe, and 500g of ground pork which in total adds up to 1 kilo (one kilo, a kilo/kilogram) of animal flesh.
Part of what people are ruffled about is that in English the adverbial phrase here would mostly likely come at the beginning of the sentence. In total he buys one kilo... In all he buys one kilo... Altogether he buys one kilo... His total purchase is one kilo...
However, in Turkey the guts (offal) of an animal is not considered "meat" so they claim it is okay for vegetarians to eat which means they also would say he only bought um meio quilo de carne (if they were speaking Portuguese of course :D).
Native US speaker here. Thoroughly agree with Grannyslasher's comment, i.e., that DL's English translation is a perfect (as well as perfectly understood and frequently used) English sentence. IMHO it is regrettable that language students can learn the multitudes of idiosyncracies of the various languages, but there is no standardized means for readily understanding the "degree of formality" of common usages.